Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If Apple stayed with IBM...
- Thread starter heedree
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
. . . apple would become a server only company, and all the PowerBook G4s would be made by lenovo. . . and maybe they would turn black, since it appears that the lenovo line of laptops is going to turn titanium color!!!!
maya said:If Apple stayed with IBM...
...we would get our beloved and long awaited 3GHz G5 in 2010.
We would be seeing Powermac g5 2.8.5
heedree said:it would be sooooooooooooooo awesome.
Just think what an mac could do with a Cell Processor
Sweet diddly squat. The Cell is too specialised a chip to be any good for personal computing needs. It's great in a gaming console but a waste of time in a regular computer.
Chundles said:
true but that doesnt mean that cell technology can't be expanded upon. It doesnt have to be "special". at this point in time it's special because the only customer for it is Sony with their ps3.
I should have said Cell Processor Technology, because I wasn't trying to point directly at the cell processor being developed for the ps3.
Is cell chip technology only limited to consoles? hmmm... maybe... maybe not...
heedree said:it would be sooooooooooooooo awesome.
Just think what an mac could do with a Cell Processor
I wish we could vote on threads like this. I'd give it a -2 on a scale from 1 to 10.
IBM and Motorola had a long time to deliver on new technology and quantity in a timely manner. They failed for whatever reasons. Some of the blame lies with Apple in its heavy-handed treatment of suppliers. Some of the blame lies with the suppliers themselves as, for example, the highly publicized yield-ramp fiasco at IBM's 300mm Fishkill Fab.
However, the switch to Intel concerns *much more* than the switch from PPC to x86. Apple needs NAND Flash memory chips, and it needs them in large volumes and low prices. Apple needs chipsets that support the latest emerging standards including SATA-II, PCIe, etc. Apple needs low-power embedded CPUs for its iPod and future video-based devices.
The solution: Intel. From NAND Flash to x86 processors (including mobile versions) to low-power high-performance embedded CPUs to component chipsets, Intel is a virtual one-stop shop.
To address the NAND Flash supply issue, Apple is investing $1.25 billion now to guarantee supply until 2010, including a $500 million investment in Intel and Micron's new "IM Flash Technologies" joint venture, a new fab dedicated to NAND Flash production.
http://news.com.com/Apple+lines+up+for+Intel-Micron+flash/2100-1004_3-5964565.html
However, the switch to Intel concerns *much more* than the switch from PPC to x86. Apple needs NAND Flash memory chips, and it needs them in large volumes and low prices. Apple needs chipsets that support the latest emerging standards including SATA-II, PCIe, etc. Apple needs low-power embedded CPUs for its iPod and future video-based devices.
The solution: Intel. From NAND Flash to x86 processors (including mobile versions) to low-power high-performance embedded CPUs to component chipsets, Intel is a virtual one-stop shop.
To address the NAND Flash supply issue, Apple is investing $1.25 billion now to guarantee supply until 2010, including a $500 million investment in Intel and Micron's new "IM Flash Technologies" joint venture, a new fab dedicated to NAND Flash production.
http://news.com.com/Apple+lines+up+for+Intel-Micron+flash/2100-1004_3-5964565.html
Plus, Microsoft is IBM's boss now...
I reckon that the real problem for apple is that when ms moved the xbox over to the powerpc G5 processor they became bigger clients for IBM than apple... Hey maybe part of Bill's IBM deal was even that IBM would inexplicably "fail" to deliver the low power G5 chip they promised apple....
Still, it's a funny world, with gates moving to Power and Apple moving to Intel... Personally, I trust apple to do it properly. Can't wait for my intelimac to turn up.
I reckon that the real problem for apple is that when ms moved the xbox over to the powerpc G5 processor they became bigger clients for IBM than apple... Hey maybe part of Bill's IBM deal was even that IBM would inexplicably "fail" to deliver the low power G5 chip they promised apple....
Still, it's a funny world, with gates moving to Power and Apple moving to Intel... Personally, I trust apple to do it properly. Can't wait for my intelimac to turn up.
bigfib said:
Xbox360 isn't going to sell enough to be IBM biggest client. If anything Sony will be with PS3 and cell. Also Apple move to Intel was probably due to IBM not willing to be bossed around by Apple. Apple tends to make outragous demands with its supliers and IBM wouldn't cave in.
The problem with the cell is that it's harder to program for, programmers really have to worry about multithreading or the cell is pretty much useless.
Not wise when you have 4% of the market, intel will be much better for expanding the mac marketshare. Cheaper costs for developing the logic board, easier for developers.
Not wise when you have 4% of the market, intel will be much better for expanding the mac marketshare. Cheaper costs for developing the logic board, easier for developers.
Perhaps we'd all be on AMD macs in a few years given the past technology sharing and announcements that the IBM work will continue for AMD into the future. http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3412251. AMD seems to have benefitted from that relationship: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1909497,00.asp That said, I'm excited about the future as I've noted a few times elsewhere with the toms hardware link, (again: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/) Intel is supposed to ship their 64-bit dual cores later this year, with quad and 8 core chips expected in 2007 on the 45nm process.